keideki:As much as I would like to chalk this up to an employee of nVidia just making disparaging comments about a new system based on AMD/ATI technology he makes a valid point. The only things consoles have to offer these days is exclusive titles, which is a system I think should be done away with. My current PCs can do anything the the PS4 will do, the only difference being that I will not have all the systems made by one manufacturer and thus better integrated. On the plus side, with PS4 moving towards a more computer like architecture (as opposed to the cell processors) maybe it will make companies more interested in PC ports of popular games, due to reduced cost of production.

Pros of Consoles: *You get a LOT for the price point. A $300 machine in today's market is going to have a heck of a time playing Skyrim.*They are completely optimized for gaming from the bluray reader to the ease that you can get into a game.*Easy multi-player setup. Ever since Halo 1 I have routinely hosted game nights at my house. If you have friends who also game then a console is the way to go.*Exclusive games is a Hell of a thing to dismiss so readily. The ps3's exclusive titles were amazing and the 360's would have been no less so if most of their games didn't come out on the pc anyways.*Size and noise is very efficient, something a machine of comparable strength would have a significant problem with.

If those pros get taken away from being part of the console arena then steam boxes will start to look a lot more attractive. I am hopeful that pcs will be the future but I am also somewhat concerned. For example, if Sony does not exist, would games like the inFamous series ever be made? It seems like this fragmented platform market may generate a larger volumn of games than would otherwise exist. I don't know if that's valid but it's something to consider. Also, the existence of consoles establishes a market standard for the processing power a game should demand. This prevents the average joe from being unable to play certain games because one component of their pc is off.

So here's hoping the consoles stick around if they're that beneficial to our market with large companies so invested in having games for their own hardware.

Disclaimer: I prefer pc gaming by far for most single player game. But it also costs a lot more money to make a computer and is not for everyone. I also happen to have a ps3 and 360 and enjoy them for other reasons. The ps3 is my main entertainment system (netflix, huluplus, preferred gaming machine) and the 360 is my main party system (Kinect, Halo, etc). Just because I have a powerhouse of a computer (i7 quad, 32GBs RAM, decent video card and such that I can bridge multiple ones when necessary) doesn't mean I don't have a need for consoles. The two are not mutually exclusive unless you're on a budget which most people are. But a lot of people have a computer and a console. You should think of computers as the Ferrari and consoles as a more general sports car meant to appeal to most people. Demanding to know why everyone doesn't own a powerful computer is a little like demanding to know why some people don't have jobs and potentially related.

keideki:As much as I would like to chalk this up to an employee of nVidia just making disparaging comments about a new system based on AMD/ATI technology he makes a valid point. The only things consoles have to offer these days is exclusive titles, which is a system I think should be done away with. My current PCs can do anything the the PS4 will do, the only difference being that I will not have all the systems made by one manufacturer and thus better integrated. On the plus side, with PS4 moving towards a more computer like architecture (as opposed to the cell processors) maybe it will make companies more interested in PC ports of popular games, due to reduced cost of production.

Pros of Consoles: *You get a LOT for the price point. A $300 machine in today's market is going to have a heck of a time playing Skyrim.*They are completely optimized for gaming from the bluray reader to the ease that you can get into a game.*Easy multi-player setup. Ever since Halo 1 I have routinely hosted game nights at my house. If you have friends who also game then a console is the way to go.*Exclusive games is a Hell of a thing to dismiss so readily. The ps3's exclusive titles were amazing and the 360's would have been no less so if most of their games didn't come out on the pc anyways.*Size and noise is very efficient, something a machine of comparable strength would have a significant problem with.

If those pros get taken away from being part of the console arena then steam boxes will start to look a lot more attractive. I am hopeful that pcs will be the future but I am also somewhat concerned. For example, if Sony does not exist, would games like the inFamous series ever be made? It seems like this fragmented platform market may generate a larger volumn of games than would otherwise exist. I don't know if that's valid but it's something to consider. Also, the existence of consoles establishes a market standard for the processing power a game should demand. This prevents the average joe from being unable to play certain games because one component of their pc is off.

So here's hoping the consoles stick around if they're that beneficial to our market with large companies so invested in having games for their own hardware.

Disclaimer: I prefer pc gaming by far for most single player game. But it also costs a lot more money to make a computer and is not for everyone. I also happen to have a ps3 and 360 and enjoy them for other reasons. The ps3 is my main entertainment system (netflix, huluplus, preferred gaming machine) and the 360 is my main party system (Kinect, Halo, etc). Just because I have a powerhouse of a computer (i7 quad, 32GBs RAM, decent video card and such that I can bridge multiple ones when necessary) doesn't mean I don't have a need for consoles. The two are not mutually exclusive unless you're on a budget which most people are. But a lot of people have a computer and a console. You should think of computers as the Ferrari and consoles as a more general sports car meant to appeal to most people. Demanding to know why everyone doesn't own a powerful computer is a little like demanding to know why some people don't have jobs and potentially related.

I can see your points, but I have problems with some of them. You're $300 console might afford you hours of playing Skyrim, but so does my PC, and it looks better and I can mod it to boot.

Launching a game on my PC is just as easy, if not easier than launching it on a console. With the console I have to change discs if I want to play a different game, on my PC I just double-click an icon and bam.

Integrated multiplayer is nice, but with steam I have many of the same features as xbox live, I can instantly join my friends games and I can see exactly what they are playing, I can message them and I can even talk to them when we are not playing the same game.

Console exclusives are well... they suck tbh, I don't have the money to afford every console every generation and being locked out of certain games is terrible. What can ya do about it though...

Hammeroj:...A few extra polys? Polycounts apply to models and not animations, and as to why, an animation in an HD game can take anywhere up to a couple/several megabytes, which, when you're working with machines that have, say, 2x256mb RAM, that one animation for one model can literally take up 1% of its memory on its own. When you're working with dozens and dozens of models and animations, that is absolutely massive; the memory of these current gen consoles is simply pathetic.

So how is it then, a system like the PS3 can do Metal Gear Solid to the standard it is (visually more impressive, smother and less glitches), but not ME3?

Hammeroj:At 64 players versus 24 players there is more action as the maps are more densely populated with players. Yes, even the ones that were cut down in size in the console version. Your posts have all been generic, vague and presumptuous, but you're just spewing nonsense at this point.

No, I have been concise with examples to prove my points. You have not. You might want to start putting in some actual data to back up your claims.

Hammeroj:The fuck does that have to do with anything? "W-w-well this other game got a patch therefore all other games can be fixed by simply patching them"? I will agree that some things can be patched, but there are hard limits to what the hardware can achieve, and the closer you get to that limit the less efficient development becomes as you get more and more bogged down in optimization.

In a word, yes. Look at EA's release schedules; 1 new game per franchise per year. You can't make a problem free "AAA" title in one year, you cut the schedule and the devs have to cut their work on it. It's easy enough to blame the hardware when you don't fully optimize the code. Yes there are hard limits, but, given time you can make it seem like the hardware is capable of things it is normally not.

gamernerdtg2:Today, many of the console games play like PC games. The comparison is no longer with arcade games, but PC games.

I miss arcade-style gameplay and there's no reason why the PS4 won't be able to deliver this.

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by "arcade-style"? Consoles have met and exceeded capabilities of arcades. I know it's hard to remember, but arcades used to be the biggest and best. Nowadays there's not much an arcade can do that a console can't blow out of the water with just a disk.

Yes, arcades used to be the best and I mentioned that in my original post. The consoles used to be compared to the arcade machines.

Arcade style gameplay - Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, any side scrolling shooter, any fighter or brawler. PC games (for whatever reason) tend to feel all the same because the character that you control feels glued to the center of the screen. I could list more "arcade-style" games but I'm talking about games that you would see in an arcade - not much story involved because you're out with your freinds and it's about interactive entertainment - not sitting and watching a movie or TV show.

Well, here's my question: just precisely how much processing power do we really need to have a fulfilling gaming experience? It seems to me that we had long ago passed the point where there is sufficient processing power to create a wonderful gaming experience. As far as graphics, we've long passed the point where, for most people's visual acuity, there is any distinctive difference attained in higher resolutions, higher polygon counts, higher frame rates and more realistic lighting model: humans don't see beyond 85 fps; human reflexes don't react beyond 60 fps; and the pixels in most current 4+ Mpixel monitors at normal desktop viewing distances subtends an angle at the edge of human visual angular resolution. Lighting is something that requires an artistic eye to get right, as far as creating proper moods and balance; calculating your way to quality lighting only goes so far. In terms of the processing power necessary for the underlying engine, from what I've seen and my own understanding, the main problem there is that the software is just being poorly implemented and not well optimized. So, escalating processing power is being used as a compensation for unoptimized or just plain clunky algorithms and code. If game developers wouldn't use processing power as a crutch to compensate for unoptimized code, I think we would find we could do a lot more with what we already have than we have so far realized. I feel we have seen peeks into this possibility a number of times in comparing games that perform superbly versus games that perform less than superbly (some being down right shitty).

In my opinion, the only people for whom this continuing race for escalating processing power has any relevance are the hardware manufacturers, who are fighting to maintain revenue, the enthusiasts, who simply like having the most powerful, highest-end machine around, and some publications/bloggers, who have a vested interest in the page views that come from the PC vs console flamewars. However, for the rest of us, I think we've all long passed the "good enough" threshold and just don't see any benefit to the processor arms-race. The games themselves need to actually catch-up to the hardware in terms of sophistication and craftsmanship. This is not the same as cramming in a ton of features and visual effects, but making the software more streamlined, cleaner, and better optimized to use the hardware in smart and creative ways to achieve results that create a full experience for the gamer. It's also about improving the design of the games themselves. In my opinion, the PC-console war has simply long since lost its purpose and relevance in the modern gaming market.

Powerful Processors and graphics cards have never promised a good game. frankly I don't care about any of that stuff, and it seems that the game developers that do are usually the ones whose terrible business practices ensure Im not buying they're games anyway.

008Zulu:So how is it then, a system like the PS3 can do Metal Gear Solid to the standard it is (visually more impressive, smother and less glitches), but not ME3?

Yeah, yeah, and the new God of War looks better than most other games on the PS3. That doesn't mean it's feasible for every game to look like that, I'm going to leave you to ponder on exactly why by yourself. I'm not going to get bogged down in completely irrelevant "examples".

Is parroting the same nonsense all you're gonna do? I already said it's possible that they could've been able to cram that animation in there. I asked you why you think it's a fitting way to spend devs' time when they could simply add the animation in there and move on and do other things.

Hammeroj:At 64 players versus 24 players there is more action as the maps are more densely populated with players. Yes, even the ones that were cut down in size in the console version. Your posts have all been generic, vague and presumptuous, but you're just spewing nonsense at this point.

No, I have been concise with examples to prove my points. You have not. You might want to start putting in some actual data to back up your claims.

You have neither provided one example - one - that directly contradicts anything I've said, nor have you provided any data whatsoever. Don't make me laugh. It's your baseless assumptions versus the words of the developers who actually make these things.

Hammeroj:The fuck does that have to do with anything? "W-w-well this other game got a patch therefore all other games can be fixed by simply patching them"? I will agree that some things can be patched, but there are hard limits to what the hardware can achieve, and the closer you get to that limit the less efficient development becomes as you get more and more bogged down in optimization.

In a word, yes. Look at EA's release schedules; 1 new game per franchise per year. You can't make a problem free "AAA" title in one year, you cut the schedule and the devs have to cut their work on it. It's easy enough to blame the hardware when you don't fully optimize the code. Yes there are hard limits, but, given time you can make it seem like the hardware is capable of things it is normally not.

The point being? You want developers to spend excessive amounts of time optimizing their games when that optimization is sluggishly approaching a point that wasn't amazing six years ago? When they could be far more efficient with their time and push out higher quality assets (for instance) in a shorter amount of time?

And what the fuck are you even trying to say, anyway? Okay, developers are capable of squeezing more juice out of the consoles now than they were able 7 years ago. Everybody knows it, and everybody knows that what the consoles are capable now is still shit, and it takes ludicrous amounts of time to polish those games to that state of shit.

That a brand new P.C video card released at the same time as the PS3 was capable of rendering lava.

Yes, yes, I thought we already figured this out. The N64 was capable of doing "lava" too. It still looked like shit, and were CCP to try doing something with their previously planned lava planets, it would suck shit through a straw too.

Hammeroj:Now I mentioned a whole bunch of things that are a result purely of the consoles' limited hardware power. You say that somehow that's a design problem. Explain the thought process to me.

Given time you can make it seem like the hardware is capable of things it is normally not.

Way to non-sequitur it up again. What you originally called design problems are hardware problems, it's as simple as that, and you yourself admitted it. Developers purposefully gimp their games right off the bat because the hardware can't handle much if it isn't a corridor, and then they keep cutting up their game all the way until release. This frivolous sort of "B-b-but they can still optimize" nonsense is overrated for one thing, and misguided for another thing. You simply can't expect developers to spend exponentially more time in development to get minuscule improvements if you actually care about the quality of games.

I know there are 7 pages of comments precisely like this one, but it's just typical Nvidia/Intel comments to call AMD CPU/GPU/APUs trash despite them being very high value in price/performance comparisons, allowing the PS4 to retail for less than it would if other companies won the bid.

The truth is, the 64-bit 8 core AMD Jaguar CPU is a pretty big upgrade compared to previous gen hardware, and the GPU has 18 compute unites and is capable of 1.84 teraflops. That's somewhere between a Radeon HD 7850 and HD 7870, the latter of which sells for $249 at any major marketplace such as Newegg or TigerDirect. Mind you, the PS4 itself is retailing at $429, so I'm guessing AMD gave them some major discounts.

Obviously, highest of high end PCs will outperform this hardware easily, but it's still nothing terrible. I'd hardly call it low-end.

You know, there's another facet of technology that's much less discussed than graphics but IMO far more important for game quality: loading times. I give zero fucks whether a game's shadows have slightly jagged issues or if the reflections from the water aren't perfect, but if I have to wait 30 seconds or more every time I go into or out of a different building we're going to have a problem. As far as I'm concerned, the ideal next-gen console would be about as powerful as a 360 and use the money they would have earmarked for a snazzy new GPU on a solid-state hard drive. Unfortunately, that will never happen, because faster loading times don't really translate into ads as well as highly detailed screenshots.

While I agree it is true that in terms of comparison there is simply no way we can compare a ps4 to a high end pc, there are other things to consider. I mean the first is of course optimization, but the more important matter in my opinion is how the release of new consoles affects the market and developers. I mean the current gen of consoles lasted how long before devs really were able to put it through its paces and utilize the entire hardware capabilities? And lets not forget some of the great console exclusives that have come from the market as well, which while I am sure could be much better on the PC, may have not existed at all in the first place if not for the console market. Some devs just roll that way I guess. So personally, I am excited about the new console generation, not because I think it will be anything special hardware wise, but because it will open the floodgates to encourage developers to make new franchises and higher end games to better suit the hardware.

gamernerdtg2:Yes, arcades used to be the best and I mentioned that in my original post. The consoles used to be compared to the arcade machines.

Arcade style gameplay - Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, any side scrolling shooter, any fighter or brawler. PC games (for whatever reason) tend to feel all the same because the character that you control feels glued to the center of the screen. I could list more "arcade-style" games but I'm talking about games that you would see in an arcade - not much story involved because you're out with your freinds and it's about interactive entertainment - not sitting and watching a movie or TV show.

It sounds more like you're missing specific types of games which is completely your prerogative. It used to be that arcades were the cutting edge of technology and consoles became able to do what they do in people's homes. This is largely why arcades died away. If they existed today the same way they used to, then they'd also not have as many side scrollers either because advanced technology is what did away with those games types as well as the demand for games utilizing 3D and advanced processing. Those things don't really make a better game, but they can make a more atmospherically immersive game (e.g. resident evil would not have been as ground breaking in 2D, this point can be arguable but I don't think there's ground to oppose that sentiment). That is to say, a game that you can stop and look around in makes you feel like you're in that world a lot more than a 2D screen. As for fighting games, they come out all the time, don't know what you're missing in that category. Indie games are also providing a lot of the 2D scrolling fix and are becoming more and more available from console stores.

keideki: I can see your points, but I have problems with some of them. You're $300 console might afford you hours of playing Skyrim, but so does my PC, and it looks better and I can mod it to boot.

Right, but your pc is not a $300 machine if it's playing Skyrim. Remember, I have a very high end pc in addition to my ps3. I know the cost and quality difference. This is why I call gaming PCs ferraris compared to consoles that are powerful but more like a middle range sports cars. PC's may be more powerful, but to get them even just as powerful as a console you're talking about several hundred dollars more and what's the point of building a gaming pc if it's only as good as consoles? So we're talking about a lot of hundreds piling up. And if you're talking gaming laptops? Throw another couple hundred on that price point. You should be able to make a more powerful desktop for around $1,000. But I suppose that depends on just how optimized the ps4 is since as stated, the hardware is not directly comparable with that same hardware in a pc.

So, with the price in mind, not everyone is has a full time salary like I and probably you have. Gaming is also my favorite hobby and so it isn't really competing with other hobbies. Some people are ok shelling out $400 for a console they're going to be able to play good games on for the next five years but would easily balk at $700 or more. Look at the ps3 launch and you'll understand that sort of debacle and that console was worth that money at the time. Regardless of whether or not you have a Ferrari or a mid-quality sports car, there will still be speed limits. In this case, a pc can process a lot of stuff but what's the point if games are designed to function on the mid-range consoles? The benefit will be negligeable unless it was designed on a pc and then downgraded for consoles. Even then, the average joe is going to have a middle quality machine or a console. So price is an important point here.

Launching a game on my PC is just as easy, if not easier than launching it on a console. With the console I have to change discs if I want to play a different game, on my PC I just double-click an icon and bam.

This shouldn't be the case in the next generation of gaming. I'm anticipating much larger HDDs for storing digital copies of games. Just as with the PC, you have to download or install the game from disk first. This is no different than a digital ps3 download except that games are more intuitively categorized in a games category that is seperate from other file types. I'd say they're about equal at best. Games from disk, consoles win out since inserting a disk goes directly into the game if set to do so and pcs still have to boot their weighty OS. Installation from disk also takes less time and can speed up game processing by splitting up data between the disk and drive. Games from HDD, about the same as far as I can tell. So overall it's a leg up but this just regards patience and not gameplay.

Integrated multiplayer is nice, but with steam I have many of the same features as xbox live, I can instantly join my friends games and I can see exactly what they are playing, I can message them and I can even talk to them when we are not playing the same game.

A lot of help that does with a group of friends in your living room. "Want to play Halo/COD/Etc? Alright, everyone go home." And god forbid that my wife ever want to play something like dance central with a group of her friends.

Console exclusives are well... they suck tbh, I don't have the money to afford every console every generation and being locked out of certain games is terrible. What can ya do about it though...

I've found that a PC and the ps3 means you can play most games. It also looks like Microsoft is poising itself to make its games available on PC's which could be interesting and may even be the future of the big boys (Steam competitors, essentially). But I've also established to positive side of these exclusive games and the fundamental positive effect that sperate consoles may have on the market by trying to compete on one another. They have deep pockets and are solidly invested in bringing quality entertainment on their consoles. That means better games for both consoles because the mere existence of one with good exclusives means the other has to do the same.

And as for noise, my gaming laptop makes less noise than my PS3 does.

My original ps3 that is backwards compatible certainly has a noise problem. But most desktops are even noiser. It's great if you spent a few extra bucks on noise reduction devices, higher quality fans, or an HDD/SSD that produces less noise but not everyone is willing to pay more for that or are even aware of how noisy they can be. Note also that there are many reasons why a person may not want their box in the living room, not the least of which is that most pc games are still not optimized for TVs, God bless Valve for starting to change that though.

Jyrik:yeah, it's a total misnomer anyway. The term elitism implies some sort of exclusivity or special designation, whereas anyone is free to get a PC and join the "elite."

But that's it, the PC elitists we are talking about are the ones that are the first to talk about how their computers stomp this hardware, and how console gamers wouldn't know quality tech if it hit them in the face.

I mean I suppose we could start using the term PC douchebags, I guess we will let the PC crowd pick which they like better.

The funny thing about this thread is that people still dont know any real specifications about the gpu of the PS4 other than its name. Defending something as arbitrary as its name is fanboyism and you would be excatly as correct by defending Zelda on the sole principle that it is published by Nintendo.

I am very sceptic that the PS4 will shine in more than a year at most, if at all, compared to the PC, simply because of the PCs ability to make changes in specific parts of its specs without having to change everything. That said, lets see how the PS4 actually fares and judge it on its actual merits instead of just guess-work because, since no-one knows anything more substantial than what can be attributed to "turbo-powered"-naming conventions, no one really knows anything about its true specs - however crappy they may or may not turn out to be.

I all I know, is that I will wait at least a few months to get an actual representation of how the specs are, rather than jumping the wagon and buying one instantly or outright refusing it all together

Tony Tamasi says, Translation: I think PCs are better because my company can potentially sell you a 600 dollar video card every year. Where as with consoles you potentially only buy one video card every 5-10 years. This is bad business for me. Also I am butthurt that my company couldn't get the price we wanted to supply the PS4 with video cards therefore we missed out at selling PS4 gamers a video card at all this generation.

gamernerdtg2:Yes, arcades used to be the best and I mentioned that in my original post. The consoles used to be compared to the arcade machines.

Arcade style gameplay - Ninja Gaiden, Bayonetta, any side scrolling shooter, any fighter or brawler. PC games (for whatever reason) tend to feel all the same because the character that you control feels glued to the center of the screen. I could list more "arcade-style" games but I'm talking about games that you would see in an arcade - not much story involved because you're out with your freinds and it's about interactive entertainment - not sitting and watching a movie or TV show.

It sounds more like your missing specific types of games which is completely your prerogative. It used to be that arcades were the cutting edge of technology and consoles became able to do what they do in people's homes. This is largely why arcades died away. If they existed today the same way they used to, then they'd also not have as many side scrollers either because advanced technology is what did away with those games types as well as the demand for games utilizing 3D and advanced processing. Those things don't really make a better game, but they can make a more atmospherically immersive game (e.g. resident evil would not have been as ground breaking in 2D, this point can be arguable but I don't think there's ground to oppose that sentiment). That is to say, a game that you can stop and look around in makes you feel like you're in that world a lot more than a 2D screen. As for fighting games, they come out all the time, don't know what you're missing in that category. Indie games are also providing a lot of the 2D scrolling fix and are becoming more and more available from console stores.

The arcades also died away because it became financially difficult to own and run them. I'm talking local arcades, not the ones you'll find in Dave and Busters.

The most important thing for me is engaging gameplay. I've played several games nowadays that bring something substantial to gameplay. These games should be fine tuned or developed further. It may not happen because everyone loves Skyrim, Halo, Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy. I say we need to develop these:

Zeno Clash Ultimate - a 1st Person Brawler/Shooter that made me feel like all FPS/TPS should have brawler combat. Dragon's Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur, and Vindictus all need to be fine tuned. The gameplay for those games is the hook. Very hands on. The Ratchet and Clank Future games for PS3 did it right. So did R&C 1-3 on PS2. Batman: Arkham City is damned near perfect. So many things are right about that game. People may have complained about the story, but that's ok. You can change the story, but the game itself is untouchable. I happened to enjoy the story for Arkham City, and have yet to play Harley Quinn's Revenge. I had to take a break b/c it was too good. Tales of Vesperia is an amazing game, and I don't typically enjoy RPGs. I have Legendia, but Vesperia combines the real time option for combat with amazing characters in a way that kept me coming back. Plus, it's impossible to get everything on the 1st playthrough.

Perhaps you can find a comon thread in the games I've picked? That's what I mean about the arcade-styled gameplay. It's not about physically owning a cabinet, it's way that modern games borrow from the past. The arcades had something beyond technology and nostalgia. They did a lot of things right in their time. It wasn't just about the graphics.

EtherealBeaver:The funny thing about this thread is that people still dont know any real specifications about the gpu of the PS4 other than its name. Defending something as arbitrary as its name is fanboyism and you would be excatly as correct by defending Zelda on the sole principle that it is published by Nintendo.

Huh? We know almost exactly what it is, we just haven't seen it in action:

I'm not agreeing with the article but it's a quick summary of what the numbers mean along with screen shots of Sony's released pdf PS4 spec document. The article also generally fails to acknowledge efficiencies gained in consoles over pc hardware.

It is pretty darn clear that it isn't top of the line. But it also isn't low end either. In any event, it is already several TIMES better than the ps3 which, again, is capable of playing Skyrim and is most limited by the proprietary processor. So whether or not it is top of the line may not mean much considering the degree of advancement in capabilities with contrast to what we can already do with systems that have piss-poor processors and 512Mbs of RAM (in the PS3's case, RAM divided into two 256Mb segments that make it less). So, do a little more research before claiming that we don't know what we're talking about.

Due to a typo in the event, a lot of people still think it's an x86 machine too (which would make the RAM over 4GB pointless), but note that it's x86-x64. There are some things that are still an unknown, but most of it is largely known. Enough to say what the ps4 is capable of at the minimum.

Here, compare the ps3, a very known entity with the ps4 specs. Keep in mind the best games of the system and imagine what an improvement of this magnitude can mean to gaming:

"Specifications suggest the PlayStation 4 isn't impressive when compared to a PC.

That's true, but also ignorant of history. The PlayStation 3, for instance, uses a graphics component derived from the Nvidia G70. Graphics cards built with that technology were widely available in PCs at the time of the PS3's release. Even so, the PS3's visual fidelity was impressive at release."

I swear, it's like we forget this at every console release once we became capable of understanding system specs.

gamernerdtg2:The arcades also died away because it became financially difficult to own and run them. I'm talking local arcades, not the ones you'll find in Dave and Busters.

The most important thing for me is engaging gameplay.

You're saying that you found popping a quarter into a system and seldom getting to the end without enough quarters more engaging gameplay? Very few arcade games have real story development. It's pretty hard to design them that way with the stop and go quarter design.

I've played several games nowadays that bring something substantial to gameplay. These games should be fine tuned or developed further. It may not happen because everyone loves Skyrim, Halo, Metal Gear, and Final Fantasy. I say we need to develop these:

Zeno Clash Ultimate - a 1st Person Brawler/Shooter that made me feel like all FPS/TPS should have brawler combat. Dragon's Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur, and Vindictus all need to be fine tuned. The gameplay for those games is the hook. Very hands on. The Ratchet and Clank Future games for PS3 did it right. So did R&C 1-3 on PS2. Batman: Arkham City is damned near perfect. So many things are right about that game. People may have complained about the story, but that's ok. You can change the story, but the game itself is untouchable. I happened to enjoy the story for Arkham City, and have yet to play Harley Quinn's Revenge. I had to take a break b/c it was too good. Tales of Vesperia is an amazing game, and I don't typically enjoy RPGs. I have Legendia, but Vesperia combines the real time option for combat with amazing characters in a way that kept me coming back. Plus, it's impossible to get everything on the 1st playthrough.

Perhaps you can find a comon thread in the games I've picked? That's what I mean about the arcade-styled gameplay. It's not about physically owning a cabinet, it's way that modern games borrow from the past. The arcades had something beyond technology and nostalgia. They did a lot of things right in their time. It wasn't just about the graphics.

I'm sorry, but your use of arcade-style doesn't seem appropriate with these in mind. These games have almost nothing to do with classic arcades aside from arcade like games being their distant ancestors. I have to ask, did you grow up with arcades? The best thing that ever happened to us was when we started getting things like Time Crises and such. I just so happened to have owned time crises on a system along with the gun and recall having spent significantly less money on that than I had been spending on the arcade game (which broke down for long enoughf or me to look for alternatives). As is, we still have two arcades in town and I'm not seeing ANYTHING like Arkham City, Ratchet and Clank, Dragon's Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur. Consoles basically opened the world for us to have ongoing multi-hour long developing stories. Something arcades were never capable of.

Perhaps you mean immersiveness? I'm really not sure. Good games though.

Lightknight: I'm sorry, but your use of arcade-style doesn't seem appropriate with these in mind. These games have almost nothing to do with classic arcades aside from arcade like games being their distant ancestors. I have to ask, did you grow up with arcades? The best thing that ever happened to us was when we started getting things like Time Crises and such. I just so happened to have owned time crises on a system along with the gun and recall having spent significantly less money on that than I had been spending on the arcade game (which broke down for long enoughf or me to look for alternatives). As is, we still have two arcades in town and I'm not seeing ANYTHING like Arkham City, Ratchet and Clank, Dragon's Dogma, Kingdoms of Amalur. Consoles basically opened the world for us to have ongoing multi-hour long developing stories. Something arcades were never capable of.

Perhaps you mean immersiveness? I'm really not sure. Good games though.

Ok, I'll start over:The reason why the consoles did so well is because they brought the arcade experience into our homes. That was paramount. Stories were added on top of this, and it was a good thing, but the determining factor as to which consoles were the best came from comparing the console to the arcade. Super Mario Brothers was an arcade game.

Today, it seems like many of the most popular games play like PC games - your character is fixed to the center of the screen and you run around shooting or what have you. It has to do with the interface primarily - instead of a joystick or controller, you have a mouse and keyboard. Nowadays, you can use a controller for your PC games, but I feel that the original way that people played PC games had an effect on the gameplay design.

Gamplay is the most basic thing, and the arcades (in their day) delivered in every way. PC gaming however, is a different world, and it seems like consoles are moving towards games that play like PC games.

The basic fun/entertainment factor is being lost in this current generation IMO. There should be WAY more games like Arkham, but we only have two. I think it has to do with the money that MMO's and FPS bring into the gaming industry more than anything else... with all the technology available to us, there's no reason why we can't have solid titles with amazing gameplay and gripping stories.

I hope I'm a bit clearer now. It's hard to talk about this because it's so broad. Time Crisis was great. I would think that if you dug Time Crisis that you'd have been into Operation Wolf too.

I get his point about the closed idea of console gaming. It makes more practical sense to upgrade your computer for a lower cost than buying a new console every few years. Or, ya know, we could all really get into rugby and not play video games anymore. 8D

All hail Tony Tamasi, scribe of The Glorious PC Gaming Master Race! Okay that joke was a bit excessive. But I do believe that what he said is true. Especially the part where Sony wanted to pay peanuts for Nvidia's services. I don't know about you but I would not want to be screwed out of money either if I had my own successfully running company. And money still makes the world go round. Anyhow, it's maybe for the best that Nvidia decided to work on their own project SHIELD. By the way, they do have to find a new name for it when it's going to be released. Because every time I write something about it I check the room to see if a bald Samuel L. Jackson with an eye patch is standing behind me.

I guess by today's standards, my PC would be considered "low-end", given that I built it almost 4 years ago and it's outdated in nearly every aspect...

...but it still wipes the floor with Xbox 360 and PS3. Games just look far better on my PC than either console, and I'm a proud PS3 owner. Just Cause 2 was a good looking game on PS3, but it absolutely blew my mind on my PC. Skyrim, Max Payne 3, Tomb Raider, etc... so if PS4 is only "about as good as a low end PC", well, I think that's alright.

I remember when the PS3 was said to be graphically inferior to the 360, too...

gamernerdtg2:The reason why the consoles did so well is because they brought the arcade experience into our homes. That was paramount. Stories were added on top of this, and it was a good thing, but the determining factor as to which consoles were the best came from comparing the console to the arcade. Super Mario Brothers was an arcade game.

Yes, several of the old Nintendo and Atari games were arcade games and the fact that you could play them at home at will was wonderful. I actually recall having a pong machine that attached to the TV and loving it. I'll say that one of the reasons I loved consoles growing up was the comfort of home aspect. Pajamas: check, Cereal: Check, Video Game: Check, Saturday Morning: Check. The fact that it was like an arcade game didn't really cross my mind. I didn't think I like arcade games therefore I wanted it. Games in general were appealing and I spent time at arcades and playing games at home. Pong was great and all, but it was just one game and the Atari had some decent games but some (ok, most) were real stinkers. You want to know what games killed (or started the decline of) the arcade? Games like the Legend of Zelda which was the first console game to introduce internal saves. Before then I think the only alternative was on pc and required external floppies to save games. Zork from 1980 is the one I remember for having game saves but I don't know which pc game was actually first. The introduction of plots was something arcade games really couldn't successfully do. That's not to say that the arcade model was bad, or not very fun, it was a lot of fun, but if you wanted an actual ongoing plot then consoles were the ones to go with. I think the playstation finally signaled the most significant decline of the arcade and then ps2 tore it a new one. Then came the xbox and everything since.

Today it boggles my mind how much more game we can get for under $60. Skyrim, Arkham City, etc, these are games measured in multiple tens of hours. Skyrim cost me less than 50 cents per hour when all was said and done. No other media offers that kind of value. I mean, huge discount media maybe? I got an old leatherbound copy of The Scarlet Pimpernel (considered the first hero with a secret identity) for $1 once that certainly kept my attention for more than two hours and has retained its place in my memory. But my favorite classic aside, there's just something more to owning my own adventure in a way that modern games allow. I bring that up to stress that arcades cannot or will not own that kind of complexity. How can you when there are no saves and you're constantly having to fish for more quarters every few minutes so they can actually make money off of a system that only plays one game? I'm not going to say that there's no immersion in arcade games, because I very clearly remember being immersed, but I am saying that what immersion is regularly broken in a way that console games don't really do anymore.

Today, it seems like many of the most popular games play like PC games - your character is fixed to the center of the screen and you run around shooting or what have you. It has to do with the interface primarily - instead of a joystick or controller, you have a mouse and keyboard. Nowadays, you can use a controller for your PC games, but I feel that the original way that people played PC games had an effect on the gameplay design.

Ah, yes. Tactile and perspective preferences. Game complexity and processing advances have largely killed those two things. First person perspective (brought on by legitimate 3D environments) adds a higher level of immersion (like you are looking at the world). Third person perspective (which has always been around, even in Pong you are represented by a bar) in modern games isn't that different [u]functionally]/u] from the original 2D side scrollers though of course it is a World of difference aesthetically with that third dimension.

Gamplay is the most basic thing, and the arcades (in their day) delivered in every way. PC gaming however, is a different world, and it seems like consoles are moving towards games that play like PC games.

It's only a different world in that it's a perfect blank slate that allows you to do anything on it. Old arcade games to new things, it's all possible.

The basic fun/entertainment factor is being lost in this current generation IMO. There should be WAY more games like Arkham, but we only have two. I think it has to do with the money that MMO's and FPS bring into the gaming industry more than anything else... with all the technology available to us, there's no reason why we can't have solid titles with amazing gameplay and gripping stories.

I strongly disagree. Games like Arkham are all over the place as sandbox games. Check out infamous, spiderman 2, hulk, etc. All you're talking about is a sandbox game in which there are a lot of small things to do along your way. I'd include any GTA game if I wasn't considering mobility in the equation. Sure, Arkham does it really well but we're a far cry (haha) from having only 2 of them.

I hope I'm a bit clearer now. It's hard to talk about this because it's so broad. Time Crisis was great. I would think that if you dug Time Crisis that you'd have been into Operation Wolf too.

Thanks for the recommendation. The best place to get the kind of games we used to get in arcades would actually be games for your phone, interestingly enough. There is ought but nostalgia or limited processing that would keep true arcade style games adrift.

My wife and I went there on our honeymoon and loved it(she'd always wanted to go to Disney World for some unknown reason. A place I'd been to all my life).

Wow I had no idea about that arcade at Disney World, thanks for that information. My wife has been wanting to go forever, and now that we have a little one, we'll have an excuse.

You mentioned Skyrim, and I'm glad that you did. I have a very open mind when it comes to games, but Skyrim is the ultimate example of where I don't want games to go. I really don't understand what the draw is to that game, beyond the sandbox thing.The sandbox idea is only as good as the gameplay, and I find the gameplay for Skyrim to be terrible. Roaming around in a world where the people who you survive something traumatic with don't remember you the next day is not fun. The combat is atrocious. I seriously don't get what that game is about. It plays like a PC game on some kind of bad drug...maybe that's why people love it. Skyrim is the only game that I really can't understand why people play it.

As to your comment about games on my phone - I'm not a hand-held gamer. (No DS, or Vita, etc for me.) I can't see playing a game like 720, or Marble Madness on a phone, but I'm sure it's been done. The main reason is that I get dizzy if it's a game that I usually play on a console or in the arcades. The screen is too small. An ipad might work, but I'd rather play at home on a bigger screen.

The inferior technology required our minds to do more with less - we didn't have photo-realistic imagery, we had sprites and pixels. We had 2D side scrolling backrounds that moved slower than the foreground to create the illusion of 3D. This I think this was also part of the draw to the arcades. You saw sprites and etc, but you were convinced.

Nowadays I think that the technology is wonderfull, but the way that games are designed and the overall tastes from gamers has shifted significantly. Gameplay doesn't seem to be as important b/c the arcades are no longer the standard for gaming. If you watch the videos for the PS4, it seems to be more about trends and social media rather than skill based gameplay. But perhaps I'm getting old...

gamernerdtg2:Wow I had no idea about that arcade at Disney World, thanks for that information. My wife has been wanting to go forever, and now that we have a little one, we'll have an excuse.

Five floors of awesome, from virtual reality to the oldest arcade games on the top floor. Seriously cool stuff and everything actually works. I'm pretty sure it's where arcade fans go when they die if they were pure of heart.

You mentioned Skyrim, and I'm glad that you did. I have a very open mind when it comes to games, but Skyrim is the ultimate example of where I don't want games to go. I really don't understand what the draw is to that game, beyond the sandbox thing.The sandbox idea is only as good as the gameplay, and I find the gameplay for Skyrim to be terrible. Roaming around in a world where the people who you survive something traumatic with don't remember you the next day is not fun. The combat is atrocious. I seriously don't get what that game is about. It plays like a PC game on some kind of bad drug...maybe that's why people love it. Skyrim is the only game that I really can't understand why people play it.

Ah, well a difference of taste is certainly subjective. I'll say that the Skyrim NPCs are responsive depending on what you've done for them. The cities slowly get to know you until the point that you're a respected member and leader. They may not remember specific events but there may be a future where processing allows AI to do that. The most common complaint I hear about Bethesda games is that there's too much to do and the player can often feel like they don't know what to do next. I find the combat to be a lot more immersive. If I want to block an attack I need to hold up my shield, if I want to strike them I need to swing my sword. Though I haven't played it as a mage so I don't know how that holds up.

As to your comment about games on my phone - I'm not a hand-held gamer. (No DS, or Vita, etc for me.) I can't see playing a game like 720, or Marble Madness on a phone, but I'm sure it's been done. The main reason is that I get dizzy if it's a game that I usually play on a console or in the arcades. The screen is too small. An ipad might work, but I'd rather play at home on a bigger screen.

You have an unfortunate combination of tastes and dizziness. Though I do have a friend who gets terribly sick if he tries to play an FPS.

The inferior technology required our minds to do more with less - we didn't have photo-realistic imagery, we had sprites and pixels. We had 2D side scrolling backrounds that moved slower than the foreground to create the illusion of 3D. This I think this was also part of the draw to the arcades. You saw sprites and etc, but you were convinced.

Yes, but none of the modern games you mentioned had any element of this in them. The indie crowd may really be a boon to you now. Make sure you get a steam account and keep up with new indie games.

If you watch the videos for the PS4, it seems to be more about trends and social media rather than skill based gameplay. But perhaps I'm getting old...

You say that, but I don't know of anybody that really likes that. What the social push is doing is working on data that shows people who interact socially in games are X% more likely to stay playing that game and invest in DLC. This is an additional reason why EA pushes always on modes instead of just for DRM.

I find that if I love a game, I am then likely to start reaching out socially on it. I never start socializing unless I was drawn to the game first. I haven't seen any data to indicate that younger people are more likely to do that.

The inferior technology required our minds to do more with less - we didn't have photo-realistic imagery, we had sprites and pixels. We had 2D side scrolling backrounds that moved slower than the foreground to create the illusion of 3D. This I think this was also part of the draw to the arcades. You saw sprites and etc, but you were convinced.

Yes, but none of the modern games you mentioned had any element of this in them. The indie crowd may really be a boon to you now. Make sure you get a steam account and keep up with new indie games.

[quote]If you watch the videos for the PS4, it seems to be more about trends and social media rather than skill based gameplay. But perhaps I'm getting old...

You say that, but I don't know of anybody that really likes that. What the social push is doing is working on data that shows people who interact socially in games are X% more likely to stay playing that game and invest in DLC. This is an additional reason why EA pushes always on modes instead of just for DRM.

I find that if I love a game, I am then likely to start reaching out socially on it. I never start socializing unless I was drawn to the game first. I haven't seen any data to indicate that younger people are more likely to do that.

I really hope you're right about the social media and trends. I understand that those things are what business heads are looking at so that they create a product that will sell. The focus on the "share" button was very strange to me - the implication (according to the people involved with the PS4) is that gamers will be moving in this direction. I hope you're right. And this is another thing about the arcades - there was a very big social element. The internet has recreated the social element, but I can't get into it. I've played some Virtua Fighter online against people, but other than that, I don't record my gameplay and send it to people. I understand the draw, but I don't need it. I wish I could embed the video that I saw to get your opinion, but they were preaching about how the PS4 would reach out to all kinds of gamers (the "hardcore" and the "casual") and that it would do things simpler... you're probabbly familiar with all of it by now. I like simplicity, but let's keep building on what we've already got in the gameplay department.

Maybe I'll have to give Skyrim another try. To me, with all the advances in gameplay, there should be no excuse for the weirdness in that game. I mean...you start being a captive, you barely escape, sleep over someone's house, and then the next day it's like they forget who you are. I'll have to try again. I prefer Dragon's Dogma, or Kingdoms of Amalur's combat over Skyrim, but maybe Skyrim was originally designed for keyboard and mouse. Dragon's Dogma reminds me of an old school Capcom game (Magic Sword and maybe something else) because of the animation, the overall combat, and the graphics. Skyrim is a PC port onto the consoles right? I would even take 2 Worlds 2 over Skyrim. It wasn't so much that there was too much to do, it was that all the activities that you could get involved with weren't connected enough, IMO. I'm all for big games. Great conversation btw.

gamernerdtg2:I really hope you're right about the social media and trends. I understand that those things are what business heads are looking at so that they create a product that will sell. The focus on the "share" button was very strange to me - the implication (according to the people involved with the PS4) is that gamers will be moving in this direction. I hope you're right. And this is another thing about the arcades - there was a very big social element. The internet has recreated the social element, but I can't get into it. I've played some Virtua Fighter online against people, but other than that, I don't record my gameplay and send it to people. I understand the draw, but I don't need it. I wish I could embed the video that I saw to get your opinion, but they were preaching about how the PS4 would reach out to all kinds of gamers (the "hardcore" and the "casual") and that it would do things simpler... you're probabbly familiar with all of it by now. I like simplicity, but let's keep building on what we've already got in the gameplay department.

Well, keep in mind that the console's job is to merely make these things available. It does us no harm for the ps4 to enable it and the market will decide whether or not it's worthwhile. It is nice to be able to play with friends when I want to so the option only benefits me. The games trying to muscle us into using social features are missing the point of organically finding people online. People don't just socially reach out to anyone and everyone, there is a necessary common thread. Could be as simple as them doing a good job in a PuG raid or being cool to talk with while making a trade, but it generally has to be something. That common thread reduces the greater internet f-wad theory's anonymity requirement (It's a thing, I apologize if citing its name is offensive: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory).

The only difference between our generation and the up and coming generation is relative willingness and ease to engage in connecting that way. For us, the threads binding us together are more carefully constructed over time wherease theirs can be a lot more loosely made.

Either way, EA and companies like it fail when forcing all gamers to rely on social elements. The internet is a mean and fickle place and more often than not I find myself spamming the mute button.

Maybe I'll have to give Skyrim another try. To me, with all the advances in gameplay, there should be no excuse for the weirdness in that game. I mean...you start being a captive, you barely escape, sleep over someone's house, and then the next day it's like they forget who you are. I'll have to try again.

All of the towns and cities have quests you can do for them. These improve your reputation with the people in the area and they come to know you. That being said, please understand that any interaction that would be based on what you've done requires running a query at some point, either to turn a flag off and other flags on to initiate certain dialogue and preventing other. This requires the information to be stored somewhere (save file) and to be accessed on the fly by these characters when you come into proximity. Something would also have to be done to keep track of what they've said so there's no chance of them randomly saying the exact same thing over and over.

Note that with advances in gameplay mean very little if the hardware does not change for 7 years. The consoles strangled Skyrim to function at 512Mbs of RAM. The PS3's asset categories further strangled the capabilities of the game because Bethesda games have asset bloating problems. It's not them being bad developers, it isn't a problem on standard hardware like the 360, it's a necessity for such a large world with such dynamic features. They did what they could within the realm of what is possible on the consoles and they basically performed magic in what they still accomplished.

With the advancement of hardware we may see one of their next games doing this. They've certainly been trying and far more than we see other games doing. So, as the best of the pack I don't know if we can levy this complaint against them so much as against gaming's lack of the ability to do it in general at the moment.

I prefer Dragon's Dogma, or Kingdoms of Amalur's combat over Skyrim, but maybe Skyrim was originally designed for keyboard and mouse. Dragon's Dogma reminds me of an old school Capcom game (Magic Sword and maybe something else) because of the animation, the overall combat, and the graphics. Skyrim is a PC port onto the consoles right? I would even take 2 Worlds 2 over Skyrim. It wasn't so much that there was too much to do, it was that all the activities that you could get involved with weren't connected enough, IMO. I'm all for big games. Great conversation btw.

Yes, pretty much all of Bethesda's games were designed for pc use moreso than console use. It was likely designed with the 360 specs in mind as a limitation and may have even been developed on 360 dev kits but since the 360 used non-proprietary hardware architecture the there's not so much of a difference between that and developing for a pc. But I agree that a lot could be done to increase recognition for a job well done or for being a villain.